Post navigation

For those of you who know me well, you will know that I have had my own small business working from home for the past 9 years. I make Wedding and Party cakes. I trained hard for 2 years to gain the skills and qualifications to go into this industry and even converted my home to be able to run a business from there. It has been wonderful as I have been able to work on and off these past 9 years around having children. Thankfully at the moment I am currently not working as we are expecting our third child, but I’m afraid that with recent political developments regarding same-sex marriage I will be unable to carry on with the business in the future.

The problem lies here – I am a Catholic. I believe that marriage can only exist between a woman and a man. I believe that children have the right to a mother and a father. I believe that taking part in homosexual acts is sinful – (it causes one to turn away from God and so harms the persons involved) and therefor it is something that can not be celebrated. I certainly could not profit financially from making a wedding cake for a gay couple.

When Civil Partnerships became legal in 2004 I had to make the choice of what to do if I was asked to make a cake for a gay couple. I decided at the time that the best way to handle it was to apologise saying that I was already booked up on that date. This of course was a lie and I felt very uncomfortable doing it. The other alternative would have been to try to explain that I was unable to make their cake because I disagreed with gay weddings for religious reasons. As my website had my address and all other contact details I decided that this could put me and my family in a position of danger.

I carried on in this way on and off for the next 9 years (in between having my children) and it seemed to work fairly well except for the awful guilty feeling I had because I was being forced to lie about being too busy to make their cakes.

So why not carry on the same way after my third child is born?

I feel the political atmosphere in the UK has changed dramatically over the past 12 months since David Cameron announced out of the blue that he wanted to re-define marriage. It has become nasty – militant even. You now hear slogans such as “Fair is more important than Faith” and “Equality overrides free speech” and the word “Bigot” is being thrown around like it was going out of fashion.

David Burrows MP told the Daily Telegraph last week that “In the last few days we have heard of a street preacher in Cambridge: Whilst he was speaking to the public about marriage a member of the crowd called the police because, “Anyone who believes in man/woman only marriage should be sent to jail. Equality overrides free speech and your views are homophobic, intolerant and very very offensive. Nobody should be allowed to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman in the 21st Century, we’re calling the police and we’re calling them now.” The street preacher was filmed on mobile phones, as the small crowd declared they had all of the ‘evidence to put him in jail.’

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the police retreated and went away. However it was a close call, and this even before the law has been changed. The problem is that the Same-sex marriage Bill risks fermenting such attacks on freedom of speech. The Bill creates a state orthodoxy which gives succour to the intolerant baying crowd or the politically correct council in discriminating against supporters of traditional marriage.”

If we take a look at Canada who re-defined marriage in 2005 we can see that approx. 300 Christians have now been prosecuted because of their beliefs in traditional marriage. In March of this year Canada’s supreme court ruled that even claiming that homosexual behaviour is immoral is now classified as ‘Hate Speech’. The court also explained that truth was no defence since “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/06/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness/

I now regularly receive abusive comments on my blog and via Facebook, the most recent being a few moments ago from an atheist gentleman (I use that term sparingly) who likes to troll the Christian Concern Facebook page:

Regarding the same-sex marriage bill he tells me: “Ah Clare, I have to call stupid when I see it, nothing is going to change except that a few bigots are going to find it hard to survive in the real world without having to rightly hold their tongue whilst doing their jobs. I will Gloat and laugh, you come from one of the most intolerant groups this land has to offer and every time you try and hold on to a bit of your self proclaimed superiority the country tells you to stuff it. Your only complaint is that you are going to be prevented from discriminating as much as you used to, Marriage belongs to all the people of the country, Suck it up and try not to be to paranoid, its a long life to spend being as bitter as you and many of your fellow travellers sound. You lost AGAIN”.

What really gets me about all of this is that these people are shouting under the banners of equality, freedom and fairness. Do they seriously think it is fair that in the UK in 2013 I feel so threatened by possible prosecution, persecution and even violence towards me and my family because the law is about to discriminate against us because we are Catholic (we could be Protestant, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox Jews or just plain non-religious defenders of traditional marriage) that I feel unable to carry on with my Wedding Cake business?

I am being asked, sorry – TOLD to put my beliefs to one side because they are no longer welcome in this country. I put it to them that THAT is not fair, or equal, or acceptable. In a progressive, tolerant society I would not have to hide my beliefs for fear of prosecution or persecution. People who believe in equality must accept that not everyone is going to hold the same views as them. I am happy to live peacefully alongside people who hold different beliefs to me – why can the liberal community not do the same?

Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act. He will make your vindication shine like the light, and the justice of your cause like the noonday. Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those who carry out evil devices. Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath. Do not fret—it leads only to evil. For the wicked shall be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land. – Psalm 37.

Not a Gentleman and a troll? Rather uncalled for just because we disagree and especially after I gave you permission to use the quote.
As I have explained several times, the page is set up to organise and justify a demonstration against Equality, I have the right to argue over that.
That looks like a nice cake, I hope you come to terms with your self imposed difficulties and start treating and trading with your fellow humans equally, I a sorry you feel your faith currently prohibits this.
As a person without an imposed morality, I manage to treat all people as I find them, how very immoral of me.

Nice quote that from Hinch as a person without an imposed morality,I manage to treat people as i find them .Not once in my life have i taken to the streets with banners to get someone else.s way of life changed and i can assure you i live in Orange Walk alley. What are these so called liberals real agenda,s why can they not speak the truth. They say they are neither one nor the other -Let it all hang out but say we are live and let live. They are liars who live a lie -As a wise man once said to me-To be in two agreements at the same time you need to be able to ride two horses at the one time and for that you need two arses .Here endeth the lesson. What you do Stella takes great courage but courage has its own rewards .Just ask Nelson Mandella.

Mr Hinchliffe. Same sex marriage is a FRAUD for EVERYBODY regardless of faith or morality. There’s one simple and clear argument that no supporter of same sex marriage is able to answer to. If same sex marriage is legal then why should it still be justified to prevent a man from marrying his brother and a woman from marrying her sister? I give you this argument because simply telling you that homosexual relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual ones has already become too complicated nowadays for some people to understand in a society where sexuality has become radically separated from fertility. There’s absolutely nothing about opposing same sex marriage that has anything to do with bigotry or discrimination or anything like that.

Your argument is laughable, as Jason points out. A male cannot marry a female sibling in the uk because it is illegal. A male cannot marry a male sibling in the uk because it is illegal. If gay marriage is legalised it will still be illegal to marry a sibling regardless of their sex. I eagerly await your well thought out response.

Actually, unthinkable as it may seem, it is not so out of the question as you might think! In Peter Tatchell’s Civil Commitment Pact idea, siblings can get ‘married’: “Why can’t we have a more democratic, egalitarian alternative to marriage where people can nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ‘significant other’? It could be a lover, but it could also be a favourite cousin or life-long best friend”. – Peter Tatchell. http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/civilcommittment.htm

Thanks for the reply! I think Peter Tatchell’s ideas are very noble and you may have misinterpreted them. He isn’t advocating marriage between siblings, only suggesting that married couples aren’t the only couples that deserve rights. If you had a very close friendship with someone and neither of you had a significant other it would be nice to be able to give them some rights should you, say, become terminally ill. This is a far cry from what you appear to be hinting at.

To add to this, Peter is not actually in a position of power. His word has no influence over the government or its policies.

Out of all the arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage, this one has got to be the weakest one. The issue is entirely fabricated.

@DavidBailey – What you have there is called a straw-man argument – you replace the idea you wish to disparage with a similar, but fundamentally different idea, then base your argument around that. In your case, this is replacing “Same-sex marriage” with “Inter-family marriage”, which are two completely separate issues. I haven’t seen one person try and justify Inter-family marriage under the context of same sex marriage, (homosexual or straight, black or white and every colour in between). If and when that even comes up, there will be people on both sides of the fence once again, except you might find that some of your bitter opponents in the same-sex marriage debate, are actually your best allies in the Inter-family marriage debate.

Clare — did you use photos of your own designs of wedding cakes? If so, they are splendid! I do hope that you are somehow able to return to such good work in the future after the birth of your child. Sometimes providing a beautiful cake for a wedding can be a work of prayer. Often when I am with my non-believer friends and their acquaintances, I just ask the Holy Spirit to make me available and full of love for them so that I can be the Lord’s hands/feet/smile. If you withdraw from your good Christian ‘cake’ service, you are unable to bring the kingdom of God to others. You have cut yourself off. I do not condone sin against God’s commands — but then I have had a lifelong struggle with lying in order to ‘cover my rear end’. It is a rare confession that I have NOT had to confess lies. Jesus says that liars are in the same camp as murderers and fornicators, so until I confess my lies, I am in the same defiance of God as a practicing homosexual would be. Just some food for thought.

Yes these are a few of my older designs. You are right – I shouldn’t lie. That is the reason I feel I can not continue. If I was to tell the truth I would be putting myself and my family at risk. Its a shame.

wow! America is on the same path. I live next to the last state to legalize gay marriage, to defend our own Christian beliefs is labeled hatred by the most in your face, unforgiving group there is.
Every time I engage in a discussion on the local newspaper’s facebook page, I am ridiculed and called names too. One simply must tolerate all behaviors except God fearing bible believing Christian beliefs. So sad, but then Christ said it wouldn’t be easy. We know from the bible how bad it will get and I am afraid we stand now at the cliff.
Satan must be smiling at all the deceived who thumb their nose at God, who curse him and his followers.
God bless you and your family. Thank you for standing up so boldly!!

I’m Canadian and I appreciate your including our current situation here. It’s crazy but we have to keep speaking out, regardless of the consequences. Perhaps one thing we ought to be doing is praying to the Holy Spirit about how to be wise as serpents, gentle as doves. Your business situation is worrisome. I pray you will be able to resolve your dilemma. God bless you.

I am an American Citizen. It is happening all over. I am a Christian. I stand up for my belief in traditional marriage. I also stand up for my belief that sin is wrong no matter what form it takes. I am guilty. That is why I need Christ to set me free from that guilt. Thanks be to Him for saving my soul. In the words of John Newton “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.”

Its sad it truly is, people here actually believe that not having the right to discriminate against others is a form of oppression, I know Clare thinks she has been treated rudely, what actually happened is that someone disagreed with her- passionately. This is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe they are oppressed when they are simply required to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Honestly, all this woe is me despair is rooted entirely in your own thinking, you can break free, you can behave in a decent human manner to other people without feeling the need to judge them for living their lives genuinely – Please try.

What you are asking of me is to put everything that I believe in to one side to comply with your views or as you put it “follow the same rules as everyone else”. I’m sorry but my conscience and my religion will not allow me to do that. What would be your suggestion?

I’d be interested to know where your religion states that being gay is a sin. To my knowledge Jesus never mentioned anything on the subject specifically. He did say to “love your neighbour as yourself.” though which I think speaks volumes. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Hi Tom, that is a great question! – and let me start by saying thank you for asking, because most people don’t even bother to find out the reasons. You are correct in saying that Jesus never mentioned anything on the subject of being gay – just like he never mentioned rape or child molesting or many other things. In the time of Jesus ‘being gay’ – that is, using a word to define yourself to a certain sexuality would have been an alien concept (in fact the term ‘gay’ was only really coined as a way of describing one’s self in the latter half of this centaury). That is not to say that there were no people experiencing same sex attraction at the time of Jesus (or course there were!) but instead the Jews at that time would have recognised it as ‘taking part in homosexual acts’. The Mosaic (Jewish) Law that Jesus followed clearly stated that taking part in homosexual acts was a sin (a sin causes someone to turn away from God), and punishable by death (see the old testament book of Leviticus: 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. and 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)
Learning the scriptures and the Law was a big part of a Jewish boys upbringing and they were expected to be well versed in this by the time they were about 13 years old when they became adult members of the faith (Bar mitzvah).
So that was the view of the Jews at that time. Jesus told His followers to respect the law: Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until Heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
The main point of Jesus’s mission on earth of course was to proclaim Himself as the son of God and to offer mercy to sinners (all of us). At the time this was considered unthinkable – so much so that He was put to death for it.
He also condensed the 10 commandments into 2 basic commandments – Love God, and love your neighbour – In that order. What he meant by that is that to truly love someone is to first submit oneself to God so we can learn how to love our neighbour how God loves them – not how we want to love them.
Following on from that he goes onto speak about marriage and divorce telling the people that marriage is when God joins a man and a woman, and that they could not understand that marriage should be for life because their hearts were so hard. Matthew 19:4-9 “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
He goes on to explain that not everyone is able to accept this teaching because it is a had teaching: Matthew 19:11-12 “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

See, Jesus never forces anyone to believe in Him. It is our Choice.

For Modern day Catholics we have clear rules on our faith set out in the Catechism regarding Marriage and Homosexuality that are too many to type out her but are freely available on the net if you want to look them up (they basically say the same as the above). Finally, the Catholic view of marriage and family is based on the Holt Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is a complicated topic but I have just written a reflection on it (see my latest blog post). For Catholics sex has a God given purpose – we cant just do what we like with it. It is meant for marriage and for procreation and reflects the life of the trinity.
It is worth noting that for Catholics, sex outside of marriage is forbidden for straights too!

Hope this helps – it is a huge topic and I have only scratched the surface, but I hope is goes some way to explaining that there are real reasons – not just something we have made up!

Your beliefs are strongly based on the literal teachings on the bible, I can understand that but I wonder how you will answer this. Is there anything or any way that you could see yourself accepting gay people? For example, if the pope turned round tomorrow and said that being gay is fine and they should be able to marry, would you change your mind too? How about if you felt as if God had spoken to you personally through an epiphany? Could you be convinced that maybe this particular bible teaching wasn’t meant to be taken to literally?

Hi Tom, Thanks for your question. Catholics accept gay people unconditionally – it is the physical act itself we cannot accept. A gay person is made up of much more than just their sexuality, even though many gay people fall into the trap of letting their sexual side dominate their personality. This is where the conflict begins. If I say ‘I cannot accept the physical act’ many gay people would take this to be a complete and utter rejection of them as a person – which is simply not true. A good example of this would be my Muslim next door neighbour: I cannot accept her beliefs, but it doesn’t stop me from liking her as a person (actually we get along very well!).
If the Pope turned round and said ‘accept gay people’ he would be saying nothing new. But if he turned round and said that gay marriage is fine then he would loose his job! He does not have the authority to change Church teaching on marriage or sexuality as this is something that is instituted by God!
It would be the same situation if I felt God was speaking to me personally – Catholics have very strict rules on this sort of thing. If you believe you have received some sort of divine inspiration then it must be tested against scripture and the official teachings of the church (which Catholics believe to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and so therefor un-questionable). If my divine inspiration conflicts with these then it is classed as either not divine (ie. from my own imagination) or it is from a not very good place (ie. satan). Many people who have claimed to have received visions ect have been proved false because of these tests. This is something the Catholic Church takes very seriously.
What you have hit on here is in fact one of the defining differences between Catholics and Protestants. Many Protestants feel they have the authority to interpret scripture and church teachings as they see fit. This is why many protestants are in favour of gay marriage. Catholics on the other hand do not have the individual authority to interpret scripture or church teachings as they see fit – not even the pope can do this! This is why they have not changed for the last 2000 years.
The Catholic view of marriage is also slightly different from other Christians. We believe that marriage is a Sacrament – that is to say that through our baptisms (another Sacrament!) we have received the Holy Spirit and in marriage we bestow that spirit onto each other (ie. it is a holy union consisting of man, woman and God). We believe that all forms of artificial contraception are wrong because sex has a double God given purpose: to create life, and to enable the couple to give themselves entirely to each other as God and nature intended, so as to strengthen the marriage bond. In this way the couple offer themselves to each other and to God entirely every time they make love. This requires complete trust and co-operation from man and woman as together they follow the woman’s natural fertility signs each month. In this way they can choose when and when not to make love in view of whether they wish to conceive at that time or not. This enables the man to respect his wife as more than just ‘means to and orgasm’ – which is what often happens after some years in marriage. For Catholics, the meaning of marriage is also the meaning of sex, and of celebrating the differences between a man and a woman. Of course this is not an easy thing to understand in our modern society. We are told to focus on taking what is right for us – rather than giving our whole selves. We are told that there is no difference between men and women – which reduces the dignity of both sexes. And we are being told more and more now that the role of Mother and Father are interchangeable and even redundant. Catholics believe that men and women are equal in dignity but different in design and purpose. When a man and a woman come together and give their lives to each other and to God it is called Marriage. Hope this goes some way to answering your question!

Can you not see how your words contradict your actions? Having gay sex and letting gays marry may be a sin in your eyes but does that mean they should be denied a wedding cake? I wonder if you would serve me a wedding cake? I am straight but have definitely “sinned” too – am I unworthy of a cake?

Hypothetically, would you serve a couple in a straight relationship who had both been committed homosexuals previously and had no intention of consummating their new marriage but would instead continue to sleep with partners of the same sex? How about a gay couple who would not consummate their marriage? How about a straight couple who are both convicted murderers? How do you decide, and who are you to say, when someone has sinned enough not to deserve to be served a wedding cake?

There are many other bible verses which denounce a great number of things. Tattoos are forbidden, should people with tattoos be allowed to purchase a wedding cake?

This issue goes further than cakes. You can accept your Muslim neighbour, why not a gay one? Your Muslim neighbours religion is none of your business, just as a gay persons sexuality isn’t. Marriage may be a very religious ordeal for you but for many it has no religious connotations whatsoever, more a cultural ceremony.

Ultimately you claim to accept every part of a gay person bar their sexuality yet treat them differently to others that you disagree with. You’ve abandoned your humanism to cater for a misplaced prejudice.

Well I have 3 tattoos and I am def a sinner, so I guess in your eyes I am going straight to hell! your argument revolves around the assumption that all major religions that oppose homosexual acts are wrong. But does this mean that people should be stopped from being able to freely practise their beliefs? Isn’t that religious oppression?

Well I have 3 tattoos and I am def a sinner, so I guess in your eyes I am going straight to hell! your argument revolves around the assumption that all major religions that oppose homosexual acts are wrong. But does this mean that people should be stopped from being able to freely practise their beliefs? Isn’t that religious oppression?

I’m atheist so I don’t think anyone is going to hell. I’m simply going to cite Leviticus 19:28, the same guy who doesn’t like homosexuals. “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” You’ve only sinned in the eyes of your own religion and God. You’ve chosen to ignore this rule, why the exemption?

As for practising your belief, nobody is stopping you. In what you perceive to be the word of the church, it’s stating “Don’t be gay. Don’t be gay and get married.” You currently follow both these rules. So what’s the problem? The problem is you want other people to follow the same rules as you. If I were a Muslim and told you you must wear a hijab because it is against my religion for you not to, would you comply? Could I not claim you were religiously oppressing me for refusing?

@faithinourfamilies you call yourself a sinner for having tattoos – what if your Christian tattoo artist had denied you your right to get those tattoos because s/he believed the Bible literally, and took Leviticus 19:28 to heart? (Obvious point, why would s/he be in the tattoo industry in the first place. Perhaps s/he has only just begun to convert). What would’ve been your response? Now, what if the tattoo artist was Muslim? or gay? Would your response have changed?

Now, back to your position. What if the roles were reversed? What if you walked into a wedding cake shop where the shopkeep was gay, and s/he denied you a cake because you were straight? How would you respond?

To discriminate- to weigh the positivies and negatives of an object, position, or action and then to accept or reject based upon the findings. Mr. Hinchliffe, I would proposed that you also discriminate everyday of your life. The act of discrimination is what we all do. You will note it does not include automatically accepting something you believe to be wrong just because others accept it. Free will is a glorious thing. You are welcome to accept same sex civil unions as a marriage. I and many like me chose to consider them a legal union, not marriage. Have I discriminated- yes, and rejected your findings. In this world, yours and mine, that is guaranteed in my right to freedom of speech. I’m not required to agree by that right.

Examine your conscience, but if you genuinely can not bring yourself to treat people equally, then you are the architect of your own problems. People purchasing goods or services should not have to run a gamut of judgement or rejection. We live in a free society, you are free to be in business or not, you are not free to act in a prejudiced way anymore than people can insist on barring disabled people from their shops and services or people of different ethnic origins.
Its entirely up to you- most people have no problem working with people a bit different to themselves- the choice is yours.

Disability or skin colour is not something you choose. A homosexual lifestyle is. No-one is being deprived of a cake by a given person’s conscience, so why target that person? Christians hold their beliefs as sincerely as anybody else, but they are the only ones who are belittled and accused of bigotry. Homosexuals claim they are being true to themselves when they live their lifestyle: how come Christians are not allowed to be true to themselves by living the way they wish to? Equality only seems to work one way.

Again, great question. The whole point of Christianity is to follow the model of Christ. That is, to give up our own way and submit completely to the will of God (just as Christ did on the cross). This is only achievable when one comes to know and love Jesus with ones whole heart – then you find yourself WANTING to give up everything for Him. Until that point, it seems a completely unreasonable request and having been in both positions I can totally understand both.
The best analogy for this I feel is that of becoming a new parent. You find yourself doing crazy things – giving up sleep, money, friends, work, you name it – for the uncontrollable love you have discovered for this tiny baby.
The true Christian faith is less of a theory, but more of a love affair.

Ann, If a Gay person ever refuses to serve you because you are a Christian I and everyone I know who supports equality will support you. If a Gay cake maker ever refuses to make you a cake because you are straight, I will support you. You have the same rights as everyone else, as far as I know no one is seeking to take them from you.
What you want is the additional right to discriminate against others, it doesn’t work that way. No one should have to apologise to you for that, take the small step of treating others as you would want them to treat you, you might be surprised at how easy it is.

Clare- seriously, you think someone is going to prosecute you simply for being a Christian?
People are prosecuted for their actions, not their beliefs, come on, lets stick to reality. If you take an action against someone that discriminates against them for reasons that are illegal you may be prosecuted. Arguing that your behaviour is a matter of faith is not going to get you out of the law.
What if you threw a stone at someone who was working on a Sunday, you could argue that it was a matter of your Christian faith, that you were being persecuted from being prevented from following your conscience, but I do not believe you would think that credible.
(Obviously I do not think you will actually throw stones either,)
I am off to work now, please try and think of one incidence where you can be prosecuted simply for being Christian- I will look later.

Adrian Smith, a housing manager with Trafford Housing Trust, who was demoted and lost 40 per cent of his salary, all because he wrote on his personal Facebook page that same-sex weddings in churches were “an equality too far”.

Rev Brian Ross who lost his position as a police chaplain for expressing his support for traditional marriage on his own personal blog.

Examples from Canada

A television anchor on a prominent sports show was immediately dismissed after he posted his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage” on Twitter.

A Roman Catholic bishop in Alberta, Fred Henry, was charged with a human-rights violation for writing a letter to local churches outlining the Catholic position on marriage.

A Christian organisation in Ontario working with some of the most marginalised disabled people in Canada was taken to court after objecting to the marriage of one of its homosexual employees. The organisation faced an ultimatum and had to choose between changing its hiring and employment policy or being closed down.

An evangelical Christian marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, despite assisting the couple by putting them in touch with another marriage commissioner who would be willing to conduct the ceremony.

A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Some Canadian provinces are even considering laws to forbid teachers in private schools from teaching that traditional marriage is the ideal.

Examples from Denmark

New laws were introduced in Denmark requiring all Established Evangelical Lutheran churches to perform same-sex marriages.

Individual ministers can opt-out of performing the ceremonies, but Bishops will be forced, sometimes against their conscience, to find a replacement minister to perform the ceremonies.

Some campaigners in Denmark are now calling for the ceremonies to be compulsory for non-Lutheran churches as well, including the Catholic Church.

The fact is Peter, that people ARE being now being prosecuted for their Christian beliefs. And I would face the same if I was unable to make a cake for a gay couple because of my Christian beliefs. The Liberal community preaches fairness and equality but has no tolerance of others beliefs. If you don’t agree with them – they will try to prosecute you. This is called RELIGIOUS INTOLLERENCE.

Lets deal with the UK ones Clare- the Air hostess was supported in law and in fact had been facilitated by her employer before the court case was heard. The Nurse was looking for an exemption to a jewellery ban because she was wearing a cross- Tough.
Adrian smith was supported by the National secular society and other secular groups- the charity backed down and admitted it was wrong.
Rev Brian ross abused his position and was doing a lot more than that- as was pointed out by another police chaplain on the Christian concern site- something the readers chose to ignore.
NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE PROSOCUTED and in the case of the Nurse and the police chaplain the dismissal was taken after they went out of the way to be confrontational- the nurse was told she could wear the cross on her collar.- not persecution.

Given how you approach these bad cases as “evidence” I suspect I should not lose much sleep over the foreign ones. Now, could you give me an example of someone who was prosecuted for being a Christian- that was the claim made and none of those UK people were prosecuted for being Christian, or even prosecuted at all.
If you choose to discriminate against people through your cake business you will not be prosecuted for being a Christian, you may be prosecuted for Discrimination. The reasons behind your behaviour would be irrelevant.

Actually If you don’t mind- forget it, I do not intend to chase this particular phantom around, you believe what you want its your right. If you wish to believe that having to treat all people equally when you are in business is persecution, then fine believe that.
Those of us who are able to get on with others without rancour will just carry on living normally, if you choose to put yourself out of business that is your choice, I do pity you that you can not bring yourself to just get on with others, but its your faith and I can not help you.
Goodbye, I do hope you get passed this.

Any baker, florist, etc that does not want to participate in gay marriage should post Sciptures all over their respective shops/webpages etc so that perspective customers will know what and what they stand for.

Actually the Baker facing prosecution in Oregon had crosses all over his wall in his shop – you can see on the video – but it made no difference to the lesbian couple who entered his shop. One has to wonder if they saw the crosses and thought nothing of it, or they saw them and realised this man was a Christian but tried to push their cause anyway?

Perhaps they were also Christians, or perhaps they thought that like the majority of people who profess a faith he was not burdened with your sort of belief system. Or perhaps they just thought that they would buy a cake and that a cake shop was the best place to get it. like normal people would.
Now I have broken my word and come back, I am sure you do not need anyone to propose these solutions to your questions, I am able to work out why people might do the things they do without the aid of someone who does not share my values, why can’t you?
I suggest you do not want to acknowledge that there are good reasonable explanations for the things you want to feel bad about.

Yes I would have because there is nothing in my faith to stop me from doing so. Incidentally, this Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday. Catholics believe that the supreme model for marriage is the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy spirit). I have written about it in my weekly Gospel newsletter which I am about to upload! – If you are interested to find out more about what Catholics do believe regarding marriage then please feel free to read it. It may help explain why we simply cannot accept homosexual unions. I believe in any argument it is important to try to understand your opponents point of view. Uploading now…!

But just to warn you – the Holy trinity is probably the most complicated and mind blowing parts of the Catholic faith! (not the best week for an introduction to the faith i feel!) so don’t worry if you find it a bit tough to grasp at first!

I will look at your interpretation Claire, but I live in the ROI, I know plenty of Catholics and you do not represent them. You can give me your view, not the catholic one.
I think its worth pointing out that the reasoning behind your belief is immaterial to its weight in civil society. I know you believe what you believe, I probably already know what you believe, to an extent- though each believer is slightly different. But the important thing is that whilst I support your right to believe and worship, you do not have a right to discriminate against others.

Actually you are wrong on that point – the views I express on the blog ARE the official views of the catholic church. I have to be very careful that I stick to the official teachings. The catholics you know who disagree with the church teaching have decided to step away from the church on this issue.

I have not had a chance to look at your blog yet, I am out to work now. I am just telling you that the people I know and have discussed this with do not have the issues you do. You may make a case that you are directly interpreting the official teachings, but the people I know are also catholic and hold a different view- ergo you do not represent the views of all Catholic’s.
Its not a huge point, just one you may wish to take on when writing about your views. I will check out your trinity views later, but I think I have explained I am an Atheist, so beyond explaining your interpretation I would not hope to gain much.
Always interesting, talk later.

You are correct, there are some catholics who’s personal views conflict with that of the church. But it is very important that they acknowledge that this is the case. One of the defining points about catholic teaching is that it is infallible – that is, it cannot be interpreted or changed according to ones personal ideals. It is important for your friends to acknowledge that they do not have the authority to put their own personal view above the official church teaching.

I am a born-and-raised Catholic, and faith remains centrally important to me. It is a shame you feel so strongly against homosexual relationships.

At the end of the day it is always and only about Love. Anything is else is superficiality. As is written in that luminous reflection of John (1 John 4: 7) “God is Love”.

From that knowledge that Life is Love, and Love is Life, our purpose for life is illuminated. If God is Love, and in our life we are trying to shorten the epistemic distance, realize our capacity to become echoes of God, and spread this Love: where is there hate, is God one to shun others?

As is written by the later author of Isaiah, (Chapter 58:9-10)

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness.

Love in any form is beautiful, I hope that you can see this and let the hate dissipate. For at the end of the day, ‘Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned’.

I wish you all the luck in the world, and you really seem to have an eye for beauty and great craftsmanship.

We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.

There is a song called ‘Same Love’ which I feel expresses beautifully this injustice which is homophobia: the idea that they can be changed by “treatment and religion”.

Geoffry, thank you for your lovely post. The church recognises and accepts loving celibate friendships and accepts each person what ever their circumstances. But it cannot accept the sexual aspect of a homosexual relationship as this fundamentally goes against God’s plan for sex and marriage and family. This is no easy thing to accept – especially for those in active homosexual relationships. But I hope by the grace of God that anyone in this situation may take courage from those who have already accepted and come to terms with celibacy.

Peter you are clearly wasting your breath. I am a Catholic and many of my friends are true Carholics including some clergy. We do not hold the views of this sad, judgemental women who claims she promotes Faith in Our Families. Jesus did not stand in judgement, yet this women defends her judgemental nature time and time again! It is not in faith, it is a fundamental flaw in her nature. Maybe one day the light will dawn on her and the unpleasant comments and sarcastic remarks will cease. Until that time the true Christians will carry on the light for her.

Dont know what kind of Catholic you are darling .Now as you know there are Church of England congregation who call them self Catholic .One thing is certain you are definitely not a Roman Catholic .For someone who takes the side of an Atheist a man who believes in-NOTHING-against a women who is ready and willing to give up her livelihood and be persecuted for her believes and her faith you are lukewarm .You neither blow hot or cold well you are one of the few who Jesus actually referred to -They honor me with their words but their hearts are far from me -.Or did you not here in the beginning he made them male and female. Also if you were a true Catholic you would know that -If your not being persecuted your not doing something right-You know -NOTHING -of the faith you profess to follow. You are a fraud .

Well Claire, whatever your view I think we can now all agree that you hold only a particular view of the faith you follow.
I am sorry that you seem set on not exploring the other positions your fellow believers follow, I hope you change your mind enough to at least give these alternate views a fair look.
Once again I will say goodbye and good luck, I hope you can get past this block on your life, but as an atheist I am not well placed to advise you, please consider the positions of so many who follow the same faith as you do but do so in a way that does not damage others and importantly themselves.
Goodbye

I think the real point around this issue is the fact that the legislation in the Bill does not require a same sex couple to consummate the marriage – unlike a straight couple who do have to. This is why people talk about the fact that it would be possible to marry a sibling. Based on the fact that the sexual aspect of the relationship will not be required in the Bill, I think it unfair that siblings can’t take advantages of the legal rights that same sex couples enjoy.

Part of me wants to laugh at this and part of me feels very sad that this is someone’s actual opinion. I hope that homosexual couples entering into a civil partnership and (hopefully soon) marriage have the common sense not to order a cake from you. Let’s face it, your silly little plan to say you’re busy is completely see through, especiallyto a gay couple who are sadlyprobably used to this kind of discrimination.

Like I said, it makes me very sad to read this blog plus it’s written from a very selfish perspective ie. is your business going to suffer.

Remember, for all you believe passionately about certain things there is someone who believes just as passionately against them. This is the 21st century, so much has changed why shouldn’t this? If you’re against two people who love each other entering a lifelong commitment then you need to ask yourself a few questions, and don’t go running to The Bible, you shouldn’t be leading your life from an outdated storybook.

Hello, Clare. I am sorry to see you are so frightened, but I see no reason for it.

I don’t see what your problem is. You make and sell cakes, two people want to buy a cake, why not sell it to them? In the 70s, someone like you might not have wanted to sell a cake to a black person, because they objected to immigration, and that became illegal. What do you think of the cake-seller in that situation?

Why should gay people not be able to shop everywhere straight people can?

Hi Clare, thanks for your comment. Actually it is a great comment because you have brought up a comparison that is being used a lot – the race issue vs the gay issue. I understand that many people see no difference between these two groups of people. but let me explain: there is no justifiable moral reason not to sell a cake to a couple because of their race. The only possible reason would be because I was racist. However in the case of a same sex couple there are justifiable moral grounds – religious grounds. My religion clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It clearly states that to take part in a homosexual act is sinful. I didn’t write these rules, the church didn’t write these rules, God did! I would be more than happy to sell a birthday cake to a gay person – there is no moral issue there, but I am unable to help the celebration of something my religion deems sinful. The issue is that there is no protection in law for people like myself. I either have to go against my religion, or risk prosecution. In the 21st century, UK law does not protect my right to freely practise my religion – that’s the problem.

We disagree about scripture: the Bible only condemns gay sex in situations in which we would condemn straight sex. Your argument would also allow a landlord to refuse to house a gay couple: should people be refused housing because we are gay? You do not mean prosecution, there could only be a civil action for damages, under the Equality Act.

The real point is that, apart from your false interpretation of the Bible, you have no moral argument against equal marriage. Your position is exactly equivalent to racism: you judge a person for how we are made. God knitted me together in my mother’s womb, Clare, and I know I am not abominable.

Hi Clare, thanks again for your comment. I’m not sure what denomination you are but I am a Catholic and the Catholic Church clearly opposes homosexual acts and proclaims marriage to be between a man and a woman (see CCC 2357 – onwards) http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
You are correct about the landlord situation – as the Landlord would be aiding the couple’s relationship and financially profiting from their situation. In fact we saw something similar to this when two British B+B owners refused a room to a gay couple and then were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for ‘hurt feelings’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9618431/BandB-owner-who-turned-away-gay-couple-claims-religious-freedom-under-attack-in-home.html
To argue that I have no moral argument against gay marriage is only possible if you have not read what my religion says about it. If you do take the time to find out why, then you will see that there are real justifiable moral reasons (these reasons are not just limited to Catholics of course – there are plenty of Atheists, Muslims, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, and Protestants who feel the same way – many of whom are gay themselves!).
If my argument was exactly equivalent to racism, then why do we have gay people protesting against gay marriage? (One of the most high profile being the leader of the French opposition movement Frigid Bardot http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/frigide-barjot-france-comedian-gay-marriage_n_2455573.html)
As I have made very clear in previous posts, Catholics accept gay people unconditionally – it is the physical act itself we cannot accept. A gay person is made up of much more than just their sexuality, even though many gay people fall into the trap of letting their sexual side dominate their personality. This is where the conflict begins. If I say ‘I cannot accept the physical act’ many gay people would take this to be a complete and utter rejection of them as a person – which is simply not true. A good example of this would be my Muslim next door neighbour: I cannot accept her beliefs, but it doesn’t stop me from liking her as a person (actually we get along very well!).
You are not an abomination Clare. You are a person, a sinner – just like the rest of us. And it is all of our jobs to try our best to turn away from sin and turn back to God. Its not easy, it is a choice, and we cannot do it on our own strength alone.

@faithinourfamilies – In one sentence you state “…it is the physical act itself we cannot accept.” the very next sentence, you state “A gay person is made up of much more than just their sexuality”

Yes, you are right, a gay person is made up of more than just their sexuality, they are, after all, human beings. “Sinners”, as you say, like the rest of us.

And yet your entire argument is that the “physical act” is what you cannot accept.

You are not being asked to support the physical act. You’re not selling adult toys, or condoms, or renting out hotel rooms so they can get it on. You are a cake maker. By selling wedding cakes you are supporting EVERYTHING ELSE that makes a couple (gay or not) great: Love, friendship, the union of two families, two communities, two people.

(Or perhaps the only thing you are supporting is the feeling of overindulging in some amazing-looking cakes)

Gay couples are going to have sex, whether you sell them cakes or not. In fact, one could argue that by NOT selling them a wedding cake, you are indirectly supporting sex outside of marriage.

I have indeed looked at your catechism. It is deeply silly. It contains no moral argument whatsoever, just a series of bizarre assertions and insults. In particular, it ignores the “natural” purpose of sex, which is to bond people together: just consider the proportion of sex acts which result in conception.

There are strong arguments against marriage. I am in favour of marriage- of course, I want to extend its benefits- but some argue that it locks people into unhappy relationships, entered in haste, and creates false expectations.

“Accept gay people unconditionally”- do you have any gay couples in your church? What form does this “acceptance” take, if you shut down your business so that you will not have to trade with them, and you want them put out of their homes?

Alan Turing was driven to suicide. Like an interviewer of a Sinn Fein MP, I must press you. Do you condemn utterly the societal pressures which drove him to suicide?

Oh, and that Canadian case. Have you read what that poor benighted man Whatcott wrote? It is a tissue of lies and foulness spewed against God’s creation. I think he should have the right to free speech, though not to push his foulness at children, but he is disgusting. The article you cite gives a ridiculous, twisted view of the careful arguments of the judges.

Of course not. However, mere assertion- it will destroy marriage, so that no-one will have babies and the race will die out- is not a ground for refusing to allow gay people the same right to have our relationships recognised in law that straight people have. I have heard no moral argument from you, and this “catechism” is mere assertion. And when you oppose equality of marriage, you show yourself to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. If you see yourself as a Christian and therefore one of the good people, know that you have no moral sense, believe stupid things (by which I mean about gay people) and are fit for ridicule and contempt.

Rule? You mean getting a tattoo?! Ha! Listen, confession is about having a contrite heart for everything you have done that has caused you to turn away from God. Sin is firstly a state of mind before it gets acted out in the real world. When someone truly seeks God’s forgivenessit is about change of attitude and a change of heart in that person. confession is a sacrament of inner healing. It often takes a long time and is very painful – but healing often is. the main point is that God is always there waiting and wanting to forgive us, but he can’t force it on us. It is our choice to accept His forgiveness or not.

Ryan’s analogy is not good enough. Imagine you were refused a service because you were Catholic. That is within living memory- even now, Oldham has one area which is predominantly Catholic, Hathershaw.

Imagine there was general prejudice against Catholics. Catholics are “followers of the Son of Sin and Perdition”- an equivalent insult to “Sodomist”, which I see on blogs- and generally disgusting, and We Don’t Want Them Here. Imagine there was increasing tolerance of Catholics, but you yourself had been abused on the street, many times, because you were Catholic- just as I have been abused, and had my car vandalised (£500 of damage).

Here you are, setting yourself up as a victim, and really the victimisation is all the other way. I shall post on William Whatcott on Thursday, that Canadian, but do you want to associate with him? His leaflets saying “Saskatchewan’s largest gay magazine allows ads for men seeking boys” and “[t]he ads with men advertising as bottoms are men who want to get sodomized. This shouldn’t be legal in Saskatchewan!” were found perfectly lawful. What was unlawful was even viler.

“Because you are a Catholic, and Catholics tell wicked lies about God, and so deceive people and drive them away from God”. How does that make you feel? Remember that in this particular situation, you have suffered violence because you are Catholic, and are frightened you might lose your job because of it.

I write that not necessarily because I believe it, but to illustrate the point.

Then have you unpacked why you will not serve a gay couple? Is it just because The Wonderful Magisterium which has Liberated you from Sin tells you to, or is there an actual moral reasoning process behind your seeing a Couple, celebrating their happiness in their commitment together, and calling them so wicked that you stop creating these beautiful things you have photographed here, so that you can avoid them?

You’re still not getting it, so I will spell it out for you. You (especially if you did not feel able to mount your own county court action) would feel angry and hurt and a little frightened, and you are making blameless people feel angry and hurt and frightened, because a man in a dress tells you to. No moral reasoning has crossed your mind- or at least none you have been able to articulate here, beyond that.

If they answered in those terms they would be guilty of religious discrimination. There is nothing in that argument except “we hate catholics”. I on the other hand am perfectly happy to sell a birthday cake to a gay person. I cannot sell them a wedding cake because I am unable to help them celebrate (and financially profit) from something that totally defies what marriage actually is. should I be forced to go against my religious beliefs?
I am not telling anyone “don’t be gay” I am saying “I want to be free to live by my beliefs”.

Interesting thoughts. There are two logical paths you don’t appear to have considered:
1. As I understand it, you cannot make cakes for any activity you regard as sinful because it would be unchristian to profit from sin. Therefore, you need to check if any of your heterosexual marriage cakes are for divorced people, because that is explicitly stated as a sin in the Old and New Testament (unlike homosexual unions, or any kind of long-term homosexual relationships, which aren’t mentioned). Do you currently make cakes for people who are on second or third marriages?
2. You don’t want to profit from making cakes from homosexual marriages, so perhaps you could abide by the law in your country (as Jesus commands), make the cakes if requested but give the profits to a charity of your choice. That way, your god God is left to judge who the sinners are (not you) and in the meantime the cake that would be made anyway, will have a positive effect through thoughtful redistribution of profits.
I hope that makes sense and enables you to continue making cakes.

Thanks for your great comments. You are absolutely right – I could not make a wedding cake for a couple who were on there 2nd marriage if one or both of them were Catholics as this would put them in a position where they were unable to receive Holy Eucharist. I could never help someone celebrate that.

If the couple were not Catholics then it is a bit of a grey area because there marriage in not recognised within the church anyway – and their first marriages would also not be regarded as sacramental. Basically, there is nothing there that would stop them from being able to convert their civil marriage into a Catholic sacramental marriage if they wished to in the future, and the option is always there for them to do so.

The difference between this and a gay union is that a gay union could never be converted into a sacramental marriage because the physical aspect of the relationship can never be accepted as anything other than sinful. Basically – it’s a non-starter.

The difference between refusing to make a wedding cake for a 2nd marriage of a Catholic couple and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is that British law does not force me to make a cake for a divorced Catholic couple. It does however force me to make a cake for a gay couple. This doesn’t sound like equality to me. Both situations would be forcing me to go against my religious beliefs. If the law was fair and equal, then I should not be able to refuse anyone for any reason. In the eyes of the law, what makes a divorced Catholic couple any different to a gay couple? Why does the law protect gay’s but not divorced Catholics in this area? Its a good question.

Secondly, Jesus tells us to respect the law of the land – but obviously Gods law is higher than the law of men! So if there is a conflict, we side with God.
I suppose I could give the money to charity – but it is not much of a business if I am giving all my profits to charity is it?! Again this is not addressing the issue of why I would be forced to make the cake in the first place.

Why does the law not protect Catholics undertaking their second marriage while the first catholic spouse is still alive from discrimination in purchases relating to that marriage celebration by Catholics who are perturbed that the couple will be in sin? Well-

because it does not happen as often as discrimination against gay people. It might be possible to make all discriminatory acts torts, that is to make a supplier of goods liable in law if he discriminates against a buyer because of the buyer’s membership of some group- but that would be difficult to draft and introduce uncertainty into the law as to which groups were protected. As it stands, the law identifies groups likely to suffer discrimination because of a characteristic: sex, race, gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, marriage and disability- and gives them a remedy for that in the civil courts.

It seems unfair to you that gay people should be protected, just because you can imagine another group which just might, possibly, suffer discrimination which is not prohibited? Really?

And- do you really believe that the marriages of non-Catholics do not matter? That is what you just said. “Their marriage is not recognised within the church”. So they can marry and divorce willy nilly. Er, have you ever complained that those introducing equal marriage want to weaken marriage, or will destroy it?

Clare, I really think you should not be troubling your pretty little head with this stuff, but you are parroting the views of bad men who want to be nasty to gay people (in whatever language they explain it). Please stop.

@Clare & @Violet – Could a Catholic give profits to charities, but not expenses?

That way at least from your perspective Clare it’s a least a neutral transaction, with two possible positives
1) Obviously the charity benefits, as you’ve stated, but also
2) Generating good business reputation through word of mouth (as you would with all your cakes anyway)

Elliot – discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how often it takes place. If you believe in equality, then every act of discrimination should be treated equally.
And as the law currently stands, my religious beliefs are not protected. This is the whole point of the article.
If you don’t like what you read on my blog then just don’t read it! No one is forcing you. Or are you not in favour of free speech either?

I refute you again and again, and you dodge the issue. Do you condemn the social pressures that drove Alan Turing to suicide? Your silence drives me to conclude you do not- or, for some reason, you think condemning those social pressures would weaken your position.

Yes, your refusal of a wedding cake to remarrying Catholics would indeed be wicked, “if you believe in equality”. Unless you can demonstrate how it could be made unlawful, and that it is worth the effort to make it unlawful, it is not an argument against discrimination law as it stands.

Your argument is saying, “I can imagine a group the law does not protect. Therefore, it should not protect anyone.” Plainly silly. Or, perhaps, you say that Equality legislation is not perfect, so it should not exist. I got “Do not let the best be the enemy of the good” from a Catholic theologian. We reduce injustice.

Your belief is protected. You can believe gay people are sinners if you like, and proclaim that, and if someone refused to sell you cake-icing tools because you are Catholic, that would be unlawful discrimination. It is your acts which make you liable in damages- you cannot refuse your service to someone because he is gay. Thank God!

I would like you to engage with the issue, not just parrot rubbish a man in a dress tells you.